“Heated Rivalry” author Rachel Reid on J. K. Rowling - “the bar is pretty high in how evil you have to be,” “ I’m extremely the opposite of everything she believes”

I don’t disagree that there is considerable interest in isolating and even removing trans people from life (In reference to reducing the number of trans people, Helen Joyce proclaimed “…two reasons – one of them is that every one of those people is a person who’s been damaged. But the second one is every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world").

Removing trans people from the world will not address any of the endemic male violence against women in the world.

Many trans people won’t survive the sex realist project due to cruelty, despair and/or violence.

The world has moved forward these past few hundreds of years towards inclusion and diversity rather than insularism and biologic determinism. The UK will see trans people living as fully embodied people once again some day.

I apologise for not paying attention to the sentries stationed at the doorway.

Bizarre to you. Of course.

Women's facilities and needs have always been political. Women's bodies and existence have always been political.
There is no "suddenly" for women.
Trans identifying men seem to think they're the first group of people to have their lives put under the political spotlight. They are not. Women have been dealing with this forever.

Personally, I never gave change rooms or toilets any thought. It seems bizarre that they are so suddenly political.

And yet, we have have two significant court judgements that have confirmed that any male people entering a female single sex provision make that provision mixed sex.

Like GLP, you can declare that there is an alternative interpretation that is lawful, but I dare say you will be very disappointed. As Bridget Phillipson says, there is no need to wait for the guidance the law is clear.

And safety, privacy and dignity for female people is indeed the very basis of safeguarding. If you understood safeguarding and consent, you would know this.

And yet, you are a male person and your experiences are not that of a female person. Your denial doesn’t change the material reality of those facts.

I think, for the avoidance of doubt, the limitation to women only in women only toilets is justified by being necessaary to maintain women's safety, privacy and propriety. Those are the de-facto legitimate aims, the proportionate means are to exclude men and provide them alternative bathroom facilities.

All three go out of the window as soon as any man - such as yourself - steps foot across the threshold to use that toilet.

That's the legal position in the UK.

My material reality is shaped by the people I share space with and opportunities provided to me/us. I've over 40 years to repeatedly absorb that objective interpretation of my experience does not exist within opportunities or allowances of a male person.

Luckily for trans people, your beliefs of safety, privacy, dignity and proportionate are not the sole influence upon law.

Your identity is based on you saying what sex you are and then acting as if that belief is material rather than purely subjective.

Your identity seems to be purely based on that very subjective reality you have claimed through your subjective interpretation of experiences. The material reality of your experiences is that they are of a male person, never a female person.

That is one interpretation. There is another interpretation that requires such a limitation to be based on a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" in the context of gender exclusion.

No one is preventing women from using women's single sex services in the UK.

It's not new. Toilets for women were political (in the sense that women had to fight to be allowed to have them at all) right from the outset. If you Google "history of women's toilets UK", there's an article on Historic UK that gives that early history.

There is no philosophy. You have no ability to understand my experience. You are very anti-my experience as it is.

It's not new. Toilets for women were political (in the sense that women had to fight to be allowed to have them at all) right from the outset. If you Google "history of women's toilets UK", there's an article on Historic UK that gives that early history.

Who is she? I’ve never heard of her.

So you understand that you have no right to use women's single sex services in the UK?

And that aim is for female people’s safety and privacy and dignity. The exclusion is proportionate.

Indeed.

Personally, I never gave change rooms or toilets any thought. It seems bizarre that they are so suddenly political.

Similarly on some days I really feel like retiring and claiming my state pension and on other days a young person's rail card would be really useful, but I am not entitled to either. Age and sex are just objective facts.

There is no philosophy. You have no ability to understand my experience. You are very anti-my experience as it is.

That is one interpretation. There is another interpretation that requires such a limitation to be based on a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" in the context of gender exclusion.